2026:HHC:26544 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2057 of 2024 Decided on: 3rd July, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shayam Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kumar Tomar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 2 and 4. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 5. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.6 and 7. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “(i) It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that present petition may kindly be allowed and respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to take into consideration the provisions of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and list prepared by respondents No.5 to 7 of eligible farmers covered for debt waiver under the scheme wherein present petitioner is at Sr. No.16 and notice annexure P-3 issued by respondent No.4 i.e. Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies cum- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:26544 Tehsildar Recovery, District Sirmour at Nahan, H.P. may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard and considered the case file. 3. It is not in dispute that loan amounting to Rs.13,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner on 01.11.2002 and disbursed to him the same day by respondents No.6 and 7. Petitioner repaid an amount of Rs.1540/- alongwith interest of Rs.160/- on 30.11.2002. He thereafter deposited consolidated amount of Rs.5380/- on 31.03.2003. Petitioner did not deposit any amount towards repayment of loan thereafter. It is an admitted position that Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 was notified by the Ministry of Finance on 28.05.2008. Under this scheme, loan advanced to the petitioner on 01.11.2002 was waived off. Petitioner has grievance to the recovery notice (Annexure P-3) issued by the respondents, holding him liable for payment of ‘Rs.16575+Rs.27718 (upto 31.03.2023) interest’ with further direction to deposit the aforesaid amount, failing which further consequences, viz. attachment/auction of property, would have been attracted. Feeling aggrieved against Annexure P-3, petitioner has instituted this writ petition, wherein vide 3 2026:HHC:26544 order dated 18.03.2024, the execution of Annexure P-3, i.e. recovery notice, was stayed as under:- “CMP No.2980 of 2024 Notice in the aforesaid terms. Reply, if any, be filed on or before the next date of hearing. Till the next date of hearing, operation and execution of (Annexure P- 3, i.e. recovery notice with regard to waived loan of the petitioner) shall remain stayed.” 4. According to the petitioner, he had never obtained second loan, which was allegedly released to him in the year 2009 and sought to be recovered by the respondents. Keeping in view the dispute raised for the petitioner that he had never obtained the second loan from respondents No.6 & 7 and assertions of these respondents that the petitioner had in fact obtained second loan, which was required to be repaid by him, vide order dated 01.04.2026, respondent No.4 was directed to conduct an inquiry into the matter by associating all concerned officials/stakeholders including the petitioner. The order reads as under:- “Sh. Hari Dass, Secretary of the respondent-CMP Cooperative Society Lower Bazar Rajgarh, District Sirmour has attended the hearing alongwith some records. 2. Heard. 3. According to respondents No. 6 & 7, loan amounting to Rs. 13,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner on 01.11.2002 and disbursed to him the same day. Petitioner re-paid an amount of Rs.1540/- alongwith interest of Rs.160/- on 30.11.2002; Petitioner thereafter deposited a consolidated amount of 4 2026:HHC:26544 Rs.5,380/- on 31.03.2003; He did not deposit any amount towards re-payment of loan thereafter. It has further been stated for respondents No.6 & 7 that pursuant to ‘Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008’ notified by the Ministry of Finance on 28.05.2008, the loan advanced to the petitioner on 01.11.2002 against account No.97 was waived off. Learned counsel for the petitioner also acknowledges and admits the above to be the correct position. 4. The controversy in this petition revolves around second loan statedly sanctioned and released to the petitioner in the year 2009. According to respondents No.6 & 7, petitioner had executed a pronote on 20.03.2008 (Annexure R-6/A), seeking loan of Rs. 15,000/-. On the basis of this pronote, loan of Rs.15,000/- was sanctioned and disbursed to the petitioner the same day. According to respondents No. 6 & 7, petitioner did not re-pay the second loan amount of Rs.15,000/- against account No.34, therefore, recovery proceedings in question in this petition were initiated by them. The Secretary of respondents No.6 & 7 has candidly admitted that loans are sanctioned after verifying sound financial condition of the applicant. Prima facie, no plausible reasons have come forth for sanctioning the second loan in petitioner’s favour on 20.03.2008; when petitioner had admittedly not deposited any amount towards re-payment of first loan after 31.03.2003; when petitioner’s first loan amount was still standing in red and had not even been waived off (the notification for waiving the Agricultural Debts came into being on 28.05.2008). Petitioner disputes having taken any loan amounting to Rs.15,000/- either in the year 2008 or 2009. An endeavour was made for respondents No.6 & 7 to submit that though the petitioner had given the pronote for taking second loan of Rs.15,000/-, but the loan was actually released in his favour on 20.03.2009. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was already a defaulter against the first loan account. Furthermore, Annexure R-6/A at the top right hand corner, refers to account No.17, whereas, as per the reply, petitioner was sanctioned second loan against account No.34. In view of above, I am of the considered view that the above financial aspects and relevant factors 5 2026:HHC:26544 need to be inquired into and examined by the concerned Assistant Registrar i.e. Respondent No.4- the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies-cum-Tehsildar Recovery, District Sirmour, at Nahan. Accordingly, respondent No.4 is directed to conduct an inquiry with respect to above vis-à-vis the documents/registers/accounts etc. maintained by respondents No.6 & 7. While conducting inquiry, it shall be open for respondent No.4 to associate all the concerned officials/stakeholders including the petitioner. Report be furnished by the next date. List on 18.05.2026.” Pursuant to the above directions, respondent No.4 has placed on record its report in form of instructions dated 14.05.2026. In terms of the report, second loan was released in petitioner’s favour on 20.03.2009, though in the pronote, the date was inadvertently mentioned as ‘20.03.2008’. While sanctioning the second loan, respondents No.6 and 7 did not consider the petitioner to be defaulter as his first loan stood already waived off under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. Change in the account numbers of the petitioner has also been explained in the report. The report is to the effect that a loan of Rs.20,000/- was sanctioned by the then Managing Committee of the concerned society in favour of the petitioner on 28.02.2009 vide resolution No.4. Petitioner, however, availed loan of Rs.15,000/-, which was released to him on 20.03.2009. Corresponding entries were made in the record in this regard. The report of respondent No.4 is 6 2026:HHC:26544 also to the effect that petitioner had even deposited Rs.3000/- towards interest on this loan amount on 30.09.2010 and Rs.1500/- towards principal on 10.03.2011. Prima facie, there was no occasion for the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount in his loan account had he not obtained the second loan. Alongwith the report, some relevant documents have also been appended. The report belies the claim of the petitioner that he has not obtained loan from the society in the year 2009. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner though disputes the petitioner having taken second loan on 20.03.2009, however, in view of the documents on record, the pleadings of parties and the report submitted by respondent No.4, the claim as put forth by the petitioner cannot be accepted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. This writ petition, therefore, is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. It is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of his grievances in accordance with law for proving his case. It is clarified that the observations made in this order shall remain confined to the adjudication of this petition. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 03, 2026 Judge Mukesh